Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #400521 > unrolled thread

The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat

Started by"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
First post2016-12-01 15:25 -0800
Last post2016-12-05 18:40 -0800
Articles 20 on this page of 55 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-01 15:25 -0800
    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-02 20:12 +1100
      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 05:29 -0800
        Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-03 13:10 +1100
          Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 18:41 -0800
            Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-03 13:53 +1100
              Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 19:24 -0800
                Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-04 16:04 +1100
                  Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-03 22:01 -0800
                    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-04 19:18 +1100
                      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 06:16 -0800
                        Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 06:30 -0800
                          Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 06:34 -0800
                            Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 06:54 -0800
                          Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 10:33 -0800
                        Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-05 11:23 +1100
                          Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 16:53 -0800
                            Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-05 12:36 +1100
                              Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 18:37 -0800
                                Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-05 13:56 +1100
                                  Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 19:09 -0800
                                    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-05 15:41 +1100
                                      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 20:46 -0800
                                        Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-05 15:50 +1100
                                          Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 21:15 -0800
                                            Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-05 22:14 +1100
                                              Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
                                                Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 07:35 -0800
                                                  Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-06 11:07 +1100
                                                    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:07 -0800
                                                      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-06 13:22 +1100
                                                    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:15 -0800
                                                      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:20 -0800
                                                      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 17:27 -0800
                                                Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-06 11:01 +1100
                                      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 20:46 -0800
                                  Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 19:10 -0800
                                  Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 19:25 -0800
                                    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 20:39 -0800
                              Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 18:48 -0800
                                Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 18:54 -0800
              Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 19:33 -0800
                Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 19:36 -0800
                Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 19:45 -0800
              Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 19:42 -0800
              Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 20:19 -0800
                Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-12-03 22:01 +1100
                  Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-03 06:26 -0800
                    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-03 06:30 -0800
                    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-03 06:34 -0800
          Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 19:46 -0800
    Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-12-05 07:57 -0800
      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 09:48 -0800
      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 09:50 -0800
      Re: The Fine Structure Constant causes space-time to be Flat "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-05 18:40 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#400812

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-04 19:09 -0800
Message-ID<4bb9e66e-798f-44a2-9a6a-6ea4aadedab8@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400811
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:56:15 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 1:37 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:36:46 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Sweet Mother Mary ..... Are you that Dull .... or set in your ways or are you just being a TROLL ???
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the Fine Structrue constant is a DIMENSIONLESS CONSTANT ..... THEN .....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> THIS ...(((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi .... Means GRAVITY is DIMENSIONLESS ALSO
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Things don't become dimensionless just because you want them to, nor
> >>>>>> because you can write an equation which would only be correct if they
> >>>>>> were dimensionless.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it seems impossible for 2 & pi to add dimension from FSC to G
> >>>>>
> >>>>> G would just be the curvature of time relative to space, mimicking a force pushing objects together
> >>>>>
> >>>> G already has dimensions, and the fine structure constant is
> >>>> dimensionless, so your equation cannot possibly be correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> OK ... Change it to what looks "more Correct" to You and Let me SEE ... OK ??
> >>>
> >>> Here is your Bare wood .. start Chiseling..
> >>>
> >>> (((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> which looks Surprisingly like the inverse of Kinetic energy
> >>>
> >>
> >> Now you have a equation consisting entirely of numbers, yet you seem to
> >> think it has some physical significance.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >>
> >>> Ke = (m*v^2)/2
> >>>
> >
> > The Fine Structure Constant is Dimensionless and Just a Number ...
> > Just Rail on About that ... OK
> 
> Yes, the fine structure constant is dimensionless, which is fine, 
> because it's defined in a way that leads to its being dimensionless. 
> Indeed, most of its significance comes from the fact that it is 
> dimensionless - everyone in the universe will arrive at the same number 
> regardless of the units used.
> 
> G is not defined that way, is not dimensionless and has a numerical 
> value dependent on the units used.
> 
> Sylvia.

Maybe this will Help you see  ........ Proton Electron Ratio 

((((1 / 6.6667e-11) + (299792458 / 2)) / 5e+8)^2) * 2 = 1836.13666626 

((((1.5e+10) + (299792458 / 2)) / 5e+8)^2) * 2 = 1836.14654139 

(0.5109989461 * ((30.299792458^2) * 2)) / 938.2720813 = 1.0000011829 

(30.299792458^2) * 2 = 1836.154846 ....... x^2*2 

(((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) /pi = 1 ..... (x^2*2)/pi 

x^2*2 

((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) = phi  

x^2*2  = (N+1)^2*2 = 2 8 18 32 58 32 18 8 2 = http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg = http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400816

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-12-05 15:41 +1100
Message-ID<eak9fpFfq7cU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#400812
On 5/12/2016 2:09 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:56:15 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 5/12/2016 1:37 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:36:46 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sweet Mother Mary ..... Are you that Dull .... or set in your ways or are you just being a TROLL ???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If the Fine Structrue constant is a DIMENSIONLESS CONSTANT ..... THEN .....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THIS ...(((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi .... Means GRAVITY is DIMENSIONLESS ALSO
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Things don't become dimensionless just because you want them to, nor
>>>>>>>> because you can write an equation which would only be correct if they
>>>>>>>> were dimensionless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it seems impossible for 2 & pi to add dimension from FSC to G
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> G would just be the curvature of time relative to space, mimicking a force pushing objects together
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> G already has dimensions, and the fine structure constant is
>>>>>> dimensionless, so your equation cannot possibly be correct.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK ... Change it to what looks "more Correct" to You and Let me SEE ... OK ??
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is your Bare wood .. start Chiseling..
>>>>>
>>>>> (((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> which looks Surprisingly like the inverse of Kinetic energy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now you have a equation consisting entirely of numbers, yet you seem to
>>>> think it has some physical significance.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>
>>>>> Ke = (m*v^2)/2
>>>>>
>>>
>>> The Fine Structure Constant is Dimensionless and Just a Number ...
>>> Just Rail on About that ... OK
>>
>> Yes, the fine structure constant is dimensionless, which is fine,
>> because it's defined in a way that leads to its being dimensionless.
>> Indeed, most of its significance comes from the fact that it is
>> dimensionless - everyone in the universe will arrive at the same number
>> regardless of the units used.
>>
>> G is not defined that way, is not dimensionless and has a numerical
>> value dependent on the units used.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Maybe this will Help you see  ........ Proton Electron Ratio
>
> ((((1 / 6.6667e-11) + (299792458 / 2)) / 5e+8)^2) * 2 = 1836.13666626
>
> ((((1.5e+10) + (299792458 / 2)) / 5e+8)^2) * 2 = 1836.14654139
>
> (0.5109989461 * ((30.299792458^2) * 2)) / 938.2720813 = 1.0000011829
>
> (30.299792458^2) * 2 = 1836.154846 ....... x^2*2
>
> (((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) /pi = 1 ..... (x^2*2)/pi
>
> x^2*2
>
> ((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) = phi
>
> x^2*2  = (N+1)^2*2 = 2 8 18 32 58 32 18 8 2 = http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg = http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg
>

Just a bunch of numbers being combined in calculations. No physical 
significance whatsoever.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400817

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-04 20:46 -0800
Message-ID<4c4682b7-6bf2-4745-9073-7774256f1aba@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400816
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:41:32 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:

For the Anal Retentive Exactoids out there .... 

(((pi / 2e+12)^0.5) / 6.67406745595e-11)^0.5 = 137.036 

(((pi / 2e-8)^0.5) / 0.667406745595)^0.5 = 137.036 

https://goo.gl/photos/v5RPg5Q3226yvMUE6 

> 
> Just a bunch of numbers being combined in calculations. No physical 
> significance whatsoever.
> 
> Sylvia.

I showed you mine ... Now Show me Yours

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400819

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-12-05 15:50 +1100
Message-ID<eaka0bFftr2U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#400817
On 5/12/2016 3:46 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:41:32 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> For the Anal Retentive Exactoids out there ....
>
> (((pi / 2e+12)^0.5) / 6.67406745595e-11)^0.5 = 137.036
>
> (((pi / 2e-8)^0.5) / 0.667406745595)^0.5 = 137.036
>
> https://goo.gl/photos/v5RPg5Q3226yvMUE6
>
>>
>> Just a bunch of numbers being combined in calculations. No physical
>> significance whatsoever.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I showed you mine ... Now Show me Yours
>

My numerology? I have none, because it's bunkum.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400821

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-04 21:15 -0800
Message-ID<986a7c3f-622a-4cf9-bff1-05481e476849@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400819
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:50:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 3:46 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:41:32 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > For the Anal Retentive Exactoids out there ....
> >
> > (((pi / 2e+12)^0.5) / 6.67406745595e-11)^0.5 = 137.036
> >
> > (((pi / 2e-8)^0.5) / 0.667406745595)^0.5 = 137.036
> >
> > https://goo.gl/photos/v5RPg5Q3226yvMUE6
> >
> >>
> >> Just a bunch of numbers being combined in calculations. No physical
> >> significance whatsoever.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > I showed you mine ... Now Show me Yours
> >
> 
> My numerology? I have none, because it's bunkum.
> 
> Sylvia.

Soooo .. you just Accept the incomplete mainstream version without question ... as unsolvable 

I just cannot see how you have a problem with my deriving a (Dimensionless constant G) from another (Dimensionless Constant Alpha). 

Apply units as you deem necessary  ....

and you show No Work and just Obfuscate and criticize 

Oh Well ......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400833

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-12-05 22:14 +1100
Message-ID<eal0g0Fl17oU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#400821
On 5/12/2016 4:15 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:50:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 5/12/2016 3:46 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:41:32 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>
>>> For the Anal Retentive Exactoids out there ....
>>>
>>> (((pi / 2e+12)^0.5) / 6.67406745595e-11)^0.5 = 137.036
>>>
>>> (((pi / 2e-8)^0.5) / 0.667406745595)^0.5 = 137.036
>>>
>>> https://goo.gl/photos/v5RPg5Q3226yvMUE6
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just a bunch of numbers being combined in calculations. No physical
>>>> significance whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> I showed you mine ... Now Show me Yours
>>>
>>
>> My numerology? I have none, because it's bunkum.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> Soooo .. you just Accept the incomplete mainstream version without question ... as unsolvable
>
> I just cannot see how you have a problem with my deriving a (Dimensionless constant G) from another (Dimensionless Constant Alpha).
>
> Apply units as you deem necessary  ....
>
> and you show No Work and just Obfuscate and criticize
>
> Oh Well ......
>
>

The constant usually referred to as G is not dimensionless. So what 
physical meaning do you attach to your dimensionless G, since it must be 
different?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400852

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
Message-ID<f4fe9822-cbb9-4af3-a5ac-ba86d2e6e25a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400833
The constant usually referred to as G is not dimensionless. So what 
physical meaning do you attach to your dimensionless G, since it must be 
different? 

Sylvia. 

Gravity appears to be the (curvature of time) relative to space , which manifests through (physical objects which must be imbedded in space time to exist) showing a movement called acceleration

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400855

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-05 07:35 -0800
Message-ID<645d524d-6150-4ab7-a674-1972d0eb042e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400852
If you look at the gravity formula F = (G*(m1*m2))/r^2 it looks suspiciously like the Kinetic Energy formula Ke = (m*v^2)/2 inverted ...
Which leads to the concept ... space time can almost literally be considered Kinetic Energy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400912

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-12-06 11:07 +1100
Message-ID<eamdqaF1ijnU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#400855
On 6/12/2016 2:35 AM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> If you look at the gravity formula F = (G*(m1*m2))/r^2 it looks suspiciously like the Kinetic Energy formula Ke = (m*v^2)/2 inverted ...
> Which leads to the concept ... space time can almost literally be considered Kinetic Energy
>

The kinetic energy formula is the first non-constant term in the 
binomial series expansion of the formula for relativistic mass; m0 / 
sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). It is therefore an approximation and has no great 
significance.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400915

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-05 17:07 -0800
Message-ID<d02ddc43-639f-446f-9125-2099dd8c8952@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400912
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 6/12/2016 2:35 AM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > If you look at the gravity formula F = (G*(m1*m2))/r^2 it looks suspiciously like the Kinetic Energy formula Ke = (m*v^2)/2 inverted ...
> > Which leads to the concept ... space time can almost literally be considered Kinetic Energy
> >
> 
> The kinetic energy formula is the first non-constant term in the 
> binomial series expansion of the formula for relativistic mass; m0 / 
> sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). It is therefore an approximation and has no great 
> significance.
> 
> Sylvia.

How can it be of no great significant when your  statement exactly Reinforces my posit that Space time is almost surely the exact equivalent to Kinetic ???Energy? and not just simply Vacuum ??

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400919

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-12-06 13:22 +1100
Message-ID<eamlmhF35seU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#400915
On 6/12/2016 12:07 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 6/12/2016 2:35 AM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
>>> If you look at the gravity formula F = (G*(m1*m2))/r^2 it looks
>>> suspiciously like the Kinetic Energy formula Ke = (m*v^2)/2
>>> inverted ... Which leads to the concept ... space time can almost
>>> literally be considered Kinetic Energy
>>>
>>
>> The kinetic energy formula is the first non-constant term in the
>> binomial series expansion of the formula for relativistic mass; m0
>> / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). It is therefore an approximation and has no
>> great significance.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> How can it be of no great significant when your  statement exactly
> Reinforces my posit that Space time is almost surely the exact
> equivalent to Kinetic ???Energy? and not just simply Vacuum ??
>

Amongst other things, because it's an approximation, and the full 
formula looks rather different.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400916

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-05 17:15 -0800
Message-ID<6eeb5a99-ad58-463a-91d6-2d77a96b7a1f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400912
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 6/12/2016 2:35 AM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > If you look at the gravity formula F = (G*(m1*m2))/r^2 it looks suspiciously like the Kinetic Energy formula Ke = (m*v^2)/2 inverted ...
> > Which leads to the concept ... space time can almost literally be considered Kinetic Energy
> >
> 
> The kinetic energy formula is the first non-constant term in the 
> binomial series expansion of the formula for relativistic mass; m0 / 
> sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). It is therefore an approximation and has no great 
> significance.
> 
> Sylvia.

How can it be of no great significant when your statement exactly Reinforces my posit that Space time is almost surely the exact equivalent to Kinetic Energy? and not just simply Vacuum ?? 

Just Face it...

I simplified GR & SR & QM down to fit perfect into the Parameters of simple Elastic Bulk Modulus and Wave speed Formulas 



Bulk Elastic Properties & Wave Speeds 


(Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5  = Velocity 

((1 / (4pi/10^7)) / 8.8541885e-12)^0.5 = 299792446.448 

The bulk elastic properties of a material determine how much it will compress under a given amount of external pressure. 

The ratio of the change in pressure to the fractional volume compression is called the bulk modulus of the material. 

The reciprocal of the bulk modulus is called the compressibility of the substance. The amount of compression of solids and liquids is seen to be very small. 


The bulk modulus of a solid influences the speed of sound and other mechanical waves in the material. 
It also is a factor in the amount of energy stored in solid material in the Earth's crust. 
This buildup of elastic energy can be released violently in an earthquake, so knowing bulk moduli for the Earth's crust materials is an important part of the study of earthquakes. 
The bulk modulus is a factor in the speed of seismic waves from earthquakes. 


Wave Speeds 

The propagation speeds of traveling waves are characteristic of the media in which they travel and are generally not dependent upon the other wave characteristics such as frequency, period, and amplitude. 

The speed of sound in air and other gases, liquids, and solids is predictable from their density and elastic properties of the media (bulk modulus). 

In a volume medium the wave speed takes the general form 


http://i67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg 


Watch for 4 or 5 minutes https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=1h28m41s 


Schwarz P ("Primitive") 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz_minimal_surface#Schwarz_P_.28.22Primitive.22.29 

The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) Paradox - A simple explanation 

https://youtu.be/0x9AgZASQ4k?t=2m41s = http://oi67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg 

Surface Area of the Schwartz P minimal surface Would be Proportional to Entropy & Proportion to Mass & Proportion to Volume 

Energy Would be Proportional to the (Tension Loading or UnLoading) from the (Distance of the Stretching) of the Surface Area  of the Schwartz P minimal surface. 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html 

(Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5  = Velocity 

((1 / (4pi/10^7)) / 8.8541885e-12)^0.5 = 299792446.448

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400917

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-05 17:20 -0800
Message-ID<ad1bd4b9-64ad-440a-a418-f9673688f059@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400916
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:15:36 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 6/12/2016 2:35 AM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > If you look at the gravity formula F = (G*(m1*m2))/r^2 it looks suspiciously like the Kinetic Energy formula Ke = (m*v^2)/2 inverted ...
> > > Which leads to the concept ... space time can almost literally be considered Kinetic Energy
> > >
> > 
> > The kinetic energy formula is the first non-constant term in the 
> > binomial series expansion of the formula for relativistic mass; m0 / 
> > sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). It is therefore an approximation and has no great 
> > significance.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> How can it be of no great significant when your statement exactly Reinforces my posit that Space time is almost surely the exact equivalent to Kinetic Energy? and not just simply Vacuum ?? 
> 
> Just Face it...
> 
> I simplified GR & SR & QM down to fit perfect into the Parameters of simple Elastic Bulk Modulus and Wave speed Formulas 
> 
> 
> 
> Bulk Elastic Properties & Wave Speeds 
> 
> 
> (Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5  = Velocity 
> 
> ((1 / (4pi/10^7)) / 8.8541885e-12)^0.5 = 299792446.448 
> 
> The bulk elastic properties of a material determine how much it will compress under a given amount of external pressure. 
> 
> The ratio of the change in pressure to the fractional volume compression is called the bulk modulus of the material. 
> 
> The reciprocal of the bulk modulus is called the compressibility of the substance. The amount of compression of solids and liquids is seen to be very small. 
> 
> 
> The bulk modulus of a solid influences the speed of sound and other mechanical waves in the material. 
> It also is a factor in the amount of energy stored in solid material in the Earth's crust. 
> This buildup of elastic energy can be released violently in an earthquake, so knowing bulk moduli for the Earth's crust materials is an important part of the study of earthquakes. 
> The bulk modulus is a factor in the speed of seismic waves from earthquakes. 
> 
> 
> Wave Speeds 
> 
> The propagation speeds of traveling waves are characteristic of the media in which they travel and are generally not dependent upon the other wave characteristics such as frequency, period, and amplitude. 
> 
> The speed of sound in air and other gases, liquids, and solids is predictable from their density and elastic properties of the media (bulk modulus). 
> 
> In a volume medium the wave speed takes the general form 
> 
> 
> http://i67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg 
> 
> 
> Watch for 4 or 5 minutes https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=1h28m41s 
> 
> 
> Schwarz P ("Primitive") 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz_minimal_surface#Schwarz_P_.28.22Primitive.22.29 
> 
> The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) Paradox - A simple explanation 
> 
> https://youtu.be/0x9AgZASQ4k?t=2m41s = http://oi67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg 
> 
> Surface Area of the Schwartz P minimal surface Would be Proportional to Entropy & Proportion to Mass & Proportion to Volume 
> 
> Energy Would be Proportional to the (Tension Loading or UnLoading) from the (Distance of the Stretching) of the Surface Area  of the Schwartz P minimal surface. 
> 
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html 
> 
> (Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5  = Velocity 
> 
> ((1 / (4pi/10^7)) / 8.8541885e-12)^0.5 = 299792446.448
> 
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1

I am saying Nothing Different than Leonard Susskind is saying right Here about QM & the Vacuum . I just put "Exact Geometric Structure" to what he is saying

Watch for 4 or 5 minutes https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=1h28m41s

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400918

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-05 17:27 -0800
Message-ID<1cc8e5d4-b007-471f-8339-e319d852fbed@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400916
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:15:36 PM UTC-6, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 6:07:40 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 6/12/2016 2:35 AM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > > If you look at the gravity formula F = (G*(m1*m2))/r^2 it looks suspiciously like the Kinetic Energy formula Ke = (m*v^2)/2 inverted ...
> > > Which leads to the concept ... space time can almost literally be considered Kinetic Energy
> > >
> > 
> > The kinetic energy formula is the first non-constant term in the 
> > binomial series expansion of the formula for relativistic mass; m0 / 
> > sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2). It is therefore an approximation and has no great 
> > significance.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> How can it be of no great significant when your statement exactly Reinforces my posit that Space time is almost surely the exact equivalent to Kinetic Energy? and not just simply Vacuum ?? 
> 
> Just Face it...
> 
> I simplified GR & SR & QM down to fit perfect into the Parameters of simple Elastic Bulk Modulus and Wave speed Formulas 
> 
> 
> 
> Bulk Elastic Properties & Wave Speeds 
> 
> 
> (Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5  = Velocity 
> 
> ((1 / (4pi/10^7)) / 8.8541885e-12)^0.5 = 299792446.448 
> 
> The bulk elastic properties of a material determine how much it will compress under a given amount of external pressure. 
> 
> The ratio of the change in pressure to the fractional volume compression is called the bulk modulus of the material. 
> 
> The reciprocal of the bulk modulus is called the compressibility of the substance. The amount of compression of solids and liquids is seen to be very small. 
> 
> 
> The bulk modulus of a solid influences the speed of sound and other mechanical waves in the material. 
> It also is a factor in the amount of energy stored in solid material in the Earth's crust. 
> This buildup of elastic energy can be released violently in an earthquake, so knowing bulk moduli for the Earth's crust materials is an important part of the study of earthquakes. 
> The bulk modulus is a factor in the speed of seismic waves from earthquakes. 
> 
> 
> Wave Speeds 
> 
> The propagation speeds of traveling waves are characteristic of the media in which they travel and are generally not dependent upon the other wave characteristics such as frequency, period, and amplitude. 
> 
> The speed of sound in air and other gases, liquids, and solids is predictable from their density and elastic properties of the media (bulk modulus). 
> 
> In a volume medium the wave speed takes the general form 

(Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5  = Velocity

> 
> 
> http://i67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg 

http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg

http://i64.tinypic.com/2mfeja.jpg
> 
> 
> Watch for 4 or 5 minutes https://youtu.be/OBPpRqxY8Uw?t=1h28m41s 
> 
> 
> Schwarz P ("Primitive") 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarz_minimal_surface#Schwarz_P_.28.22Primitive.22.29 
> 
> The Einstein Podolsky Rosen (EPR) Paradox - A simple explanation 
> 
> https://youtu.be/0x9AgZASQ4k?t=2m41s = http://oi67.tinypic.com/5anxg7.jpg 
> 
> Surface Area of the Schwartz P minimal surface Would be Proportional to Entropy & Proportion to Mass & Proportion to Volume 
> 
> Energy Would be Proportional to the (Tension Loading or UnLoading) from the (Distance of the Stretching) of the Surface Area  of the Schwartz P minimal surface. 
> 
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html 
> 
> (Elastic Property / Inertial Property)^0.5  = Velocity 
> 
> ((1 / (4pi/10^7)) / 8.8541885e-12)^0.5 = 299792446.448
> 
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1

It is So Simple a High school kid Kid should be able to understand the relationships

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400911

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2016-12-06 11:01 +1100
Message-ID<eamde6F1fqoU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#400852
On 6/12/2016 2:15 AM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
>
> The constant usually referred to as G is not dimensionless. So what
> physical meaning do you attach to your dimensionless G, since it must be
> different?
>
> Sylvia.
>
> Gravity appears to be the (curvature of time) relative to space , which manifests through (physical objects which must be imbedded in space time to exist) showing a movement called acceleration
>

That doesn't answer the question.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400818

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-04 20:46 -0800
Message-ID<aad8fd3b-11cc-40b5-ac6f-fee37eab3ec4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400816
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 10:41:32 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 2:09 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:56:15 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 5/12/2016 1:37 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:36:46 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sweet Mother Mary ..... Are you that Dull .... or set in your ways or are you just being a TROLL ???
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If the Fine Structrue constant is a DIMENSIONLESS CONSTANT ..... THEN .....
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> THIS ...(((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi .... Means GRAVITY is DIMENSIONLESS ALSO
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Things don't become dimensionless just because you want them to, nor
> >>>>>>>> because you can write an equation which would only be correct if they
> >>>>>>>> were dimensionless.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it seems impossible for 2 & pi to add dimension from FSC to G
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> G would just be the curvature of time relative to space, mimicking a force pushing objects together
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> G already has dimensions, and the fine structure constant is
> >>>>>> dimensionless, so your equation cannot possibly be correct.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK ... Change it to what looks "more Correct" to You and Let me SEE ... OK ??
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here is your Bare wood .. start Chiseling..
> >>>>>
> >>>>> (((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> which looks Surprisingly like the inverse of Kinetic energy
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Now you have a equation consisting entirely of numbers, yet you seem to
> >>>> think it has some physical significance.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Ke = (m*v^2)/2
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> The Fine Structure Constant is Dimensionless and Just a Number ...
> >>> Just Rail on About that ... OK
> >>
> >> Yes, the fine structure constant is dimensionless, which is fine,
> >> because it's defined in a way that leads to its being dimensionless.
> >> Indeed, most of its significance comes from the fact that it is
> >> dimensionless - everyone in the universe will arrive at the same number
> >> regardless of the units used.
> >>
> >> G is not defined that way, is not dimensionless and has a numerical
> >> value dependent on the units used.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > Maybe this will Help you see  ........ Proton Electron Ratio
> >
> > ((((1 / 6.6667e-11) + (299792458 / 2)) / 5e+8)^2) * 2 = 1836.13666626
> >
> > ((((1.5e+10) + (299792458 / 2)) / 5e+8)^2) * 2 = 1836.14654139
> >
> > (0.5109989461 * ((30.299792458^2) * 2)) / 938.2720813 = 1.0000011829
> >
> > (30.299792458^2) * 2 = 1836.154846 ....... x^2*2
> >
> > (((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) /pi = 1 ..... (x^2*2)/pi
> >
> > x^2*2
> >
> > ((e * cos(137035.9991232535539893 radians)) - 1) = phi
> >
> > x^2*2  = (N+1)^2*2 = 2 8 18 32 58 32 18 8 2 = http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg = http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg
> >
> 
> Just a bunch of numbers being combined in calculations. No physical 
> significance whatsoever.
> 
> Sylvia.

Silvia is Poop Head

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400813

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-04 19:10 -0800
Message-ID<c2b5cc2e-5545-4147-981b-1a8767c5478e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400811
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:56:15 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 1:37 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:36:46 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Sweet Mother Mary ..... Are you that Dull .... or set in your ways or are you just being a TROLL ???
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the Fine Structrue constant is a DIMENSIONLESS CONSTANT ..... THEN .....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> THIS ...(((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi .... Means GRAVITY is DIMENSIONLESS ALSO
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Things don't become dimensionless just because you want them to, nor
> >>>>>> because you can write an equation which would only be correct if they
> >>>>>> were dimensionless.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it seems impossible for 2 & pi to add dimension from FSC to G
> >>>>>
> >>>>> G would just be the curvature of time relative to space, mimicking a force pushing objects together
> >>>>>
> >>>> G already has dimensions, and the fine structure constant is
> >>>> dimensionless, so your equation cannot possibly be correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> OK ... Change it to what looks "more Correct" to You and Let me SEE ... OK ??
> >>>
> >>> Here is your Bare wood .. start Chiseling..
> >>>
> >>> (((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> which looks Surprisingly like the inverse of Kinetic energy
> >>>
> >>
> >> Now you have a equation consisting entirely of numbers, yet you seem to
> >> think it has some physical significance.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >>
> >>> Ke = (m*v^2)/2
> >>>
> >
> > The Fine Structure Constant is Dimensionless and Just a Number ...
> > Just Rail on About that ... OK
> 
> Yes, the fine structure constant is dimensionless, which is fine, 
> because it's defined in a way that leads to its being dimensionless. 
> Indeed, most of its significance comes from the fact that it is 
> dimensionless - everyone in the universe will arrive at the same number 
> regardless of the units used.
> 
> G is not defined that way, is not dimensionless and has a numerical 
> value dependent on the units used.
> 
> Sylvia.

https://goo.gl/photos/v5RPg5Q3226yvMUE6 = (((pi / 2e+12)^0.5) / 6.67406745595e-11)^0.5

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400814

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-04 19:25 -0800
Message-ID<212f33da-5f1a-4816-ad6f-f91481e148ee@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400811
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 8:56:15 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 5/12/2016 1:37 PM, David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:36:46 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Sweet Mother Mary ..... Are you that Dull .... or set in your ways or are you just being a TROLL ???
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If the Fine Structrue constant is a DIMENSIONLESS CONSTANT ..... THEN .....
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> THIS ...(((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi .... Means GRAVITY is DIMENSIONLESS ALSO
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Things don't become dimensionless just because you want them to, nor
> >>>>>> because you can write an equation which would only be correct if they
> >>>>>> were dimensionless.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it seems impossible for 2 & pi to add dimension from FSC to G
> >>>>>
> >>>>> G would just be the curvature of time relative to space, mimicking a force pushing objects together
> >>>>>
> >>>> G already has dimensions, and the fine structure constant is
> >>>> dimensionless, so your equation cannot possibly be correct.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> OK ... Change it to what looks "more Correct" to You and Let me SEE ... OK ??
> >>>
> >>> Here is your Bare wood .. start Chiseling..
> >>>
> >>> (((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> which looks Surprisingly like the inverse of Kinetic energy
> >>>
> >>
> >> Now you have a equation consisting entirely of numbers, yet you seem to
> >> think it has some physical significance.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >>
> >>> Ke = (m*v^2)/2
> >>>
> >
> > The Fine Structure Constant is Dimensionless and Just a Number ...
> > Just Rail on About that ... OK
> 
> Yes, the fine structure constant is dimensionless, which is fine, 
> because it's defined in a way that leads to its being dimensionless. 
> Indeed, most of its significance comes from the fact that it is 
> dimensionless - everyone in the universe will arrive at the same number 
> regardless of the units used.
> 
> G is not defined that way, is not dimensionless and has a numerical 
> value dependent on the units used.
> 
> Sylvia.

((pi/2e+12)^0.5)/137.03599912^2 = 6.6740675e-11

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400815

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-04 20:39 -0800
Message-ID<de576ec4-9947-400f-8278-6a27cf5112aa@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400814
For the Anal Retentive Exactoids out there .... 

(((pi / 2e+12)^0.5) / 6.67406745595e-11)^0.5 = 137.036

(((pi / 2e-8)^0.5) / 0.667406745595)^0.5 = 137.036

https://goo.gl/photos/v5RPg5Q3226yvMUE6

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#400809

From"David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date2016-12-04 18:48 -0800
Message-ID<cc792d78-60aa-423d-9fb9-870561b43adf@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#400805
On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 7:36:46 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:

> >
> > OK ... Change it to what looks "more Correct" to You and Let me SEE ... OK ??
> >
> > Here is your Bare wood .. start Chiseling..
> >
> > (((137036^4) * (6.67406745595e-11^2)) * 2) = pi
> >
> >
> > which looks Surprisingly like the inverse of Kinetic energy
> >
> 
> Now you have a equation consisting entirely of numbers, yet you seem to 
> think it has some physical significance.
> 
> Sylvia.
> 
> > Ke = (m*v^2)/2
> >


Here ... I fixed it for you Just Use the Below instead of alpha .... OK ??

(((pi / 2e+12)^0.5) / 6.67406745595e-11)^0.5 = 137.036

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web